MISkier

@6balls, I heard a statistic that the survival rate for CPR is like 20% in a hospital and like 10% outside of a hospital. Does that sound about right? The tournament was kind of in the middle of nowhere. it was such a great response. His son was just amazing during the whole situation and the whole team performed so well.

September 23, 2023 was a beautiful day for Michigan's final water skiing tournament of the season at a great site well out in the countryside of West Michigan. With full sunshine, light winds, and reasonable temperatures for late September, the tournament started at 8:30AM with a full running order. The first skier off the dock, Kevan Fager (M7), had traveled from Minnesota to visit his son and daughter, who were attending college nearby. All 3 had entered the tournament. After his round had concluded, Kevan returned to his car and changed into dry clothing between rounds. Shortly afterward, as he sat in the car with his family, he began to feel unwell. A few moments after that, he became unresponsive and went into cardiac arrest. His family immediately removed him from the car and a call to 911 was made. Kevan’s son, Kerry, who reportedly had completed CPR training only weeks before, began resuscitating his father. His daughter informed tournament officials of the emergency. The Chief Safety, Kurt Rotman @kurt, raced to the starting dock to retrieve the safety kit and Mike Trembowicz, another skier who is an anesthesiologist. As Kerry continued to administer textbook CPR, Kurt and Mike arrived within a minute or so. The safety kits provided to Michigan tournaments by the Michigan Water Ski Association contain an Automated External Defibrillator (AED). Kurt opened the AED and initialized it. Mike applied the pads to the Kevan’s chest and continued his assessment of Kevan’s condition while Kerry continued CPR. The AED analyzed Kevan’s heart and advised for a shock, which was delivered. Kerry resumed CPR and a second official, Larry Lutz, who is a nurse anesthetist, was summoned from his duties as boat judge to assist, as the tournament was halted. Kevan was gray in color and gurgling, with no evident steady vital signs. A second shock from the AED was advised and delivered. Kerry resumed CPR. First responders began to arrive in waves from the local fire department with additional equipment. An advanced airway was inserted and the bag was used to supply breaths. A third shock from the AED was advised and delivered. Kerry resumed providing chest compressions. As additional responders arrived, an automatic chest compression device was applied and began to supply the compressions. A fourth shock from the AED was advised and delivered. Mike and Larry monitored Kevan and attempted to detect vital signs and assist/advise responders in resuscitation efforts. The coordination and cooperation amongst all of the responders was calm and efficient. Every required action was quickly identified and completed without confusion or loss of focus. Eventually, Kevan exhibited weak, but steady, vital signs and his color had improved substantially. He was transferred to the ambulance gurney and transported to the hospital. Kevan received additional care and various procedures at the hospital. After a week, he was discharged and returned home to Minnesota to continue his recuperation. His prognosis is excellent. With a deep devotion to their Christian Faith, Kevan and his family credit the amazing outcome and confluence of skilled responders to God. Indeed, many of the responders and bystanders that day immediately commented on His presence and the miracle they had witnessed.

The geese probably aren’t landing directly on the jump. They like to swim up to rafts, docks, etc. and then step/hop up onto the object with a minimum of wing flapping to lift them. Anything higher than a foot or two off the water can be an obstacle to them. As @BlueSki said, string some line across any portion of the ramp that is an easy hop up for them. It may only need to be at the base of the ramp.

@Scott Russell, the patent office did not create the monopoly. Both parties agreed to it as part of their lawsuit. They settled with each other before it even got to court, if I recall correctly. Part of that agreement was that eControls would not be able to market directly to boat owners with existing mechanical throttle or pre-2009 DBW setup. So, PerfectPass received that market as theirs. The re-power option you see with old boats was apparently not included in the agreement and is the workaround for those wanting true ZO in old boats. Now, if a third party were to produce a new speed control system for either of these markets (new or old), then the viability and validity of the patents would come into play and the other company would have to defend such a challenge. I see a new challenger as unlikely, as there are relationships within the boat manufacturer, speed control company, and water ski governing body that make the entry into the market difficult.

@Scott Russell, I don't think the manufacturers are actually doing the tuning. I believe that eControls is involved to produce the software image for them to load. I think it is a collaborative process rather than an open interface that allows customization by either manufacturers or end users. I think the software image is produced and managed by eControls to be provided to the manufacturers. Hopefully, someone else with direct involvement in this process can comment. I think there are skiers and drivers on this forum who are consulted for this tuning and calibration effort.

@Scott Russell, I'm not sure of their patent duration. But, the agreement/settlement between eControls and PerfectPass in 2008 did give eControls the monopoly on new boat speed control going forward. I believe the 2009 model year was the first year that it was exercised.

I believe the ZO versus PP patent case says that PP cannot be installed on new boats after whatever date the case was settled. I think that was somewhere in 2008.

There are different ZO software levels for each boat, according to how the manufacturer wants to tune their boat behavior with the particular engine and transmission, etc. setup they have. I recall skiing behind a MasterCraft years ago that was accidentally loaded with the incorrect ZO software for a Nautique. Awful pull. But, that software versioning is why each manufacturer can feel slightly different, even with identical engines. It's just like some of the tuner cars you see that are basically achieved by adjusting the ECM with a laptop. They are different than factory settings. Everything is controlled by that unit, including how responsive they want the throttle adjustments to be, regardless of inherent DBW capability.

I seem to recall that the actual ZO algorithms were embedded in the eControls ECU itself and the head unit is just an interface/menu system. The ECU is particularly important as it utilizes a CANbus mechanism to not only manage throttle response, but to do so while being aware of torque and horsepower curves of the various engines in conjunction with accelerometer measurements and the GPS timing. I think some of this was in the eControls patent documentation itself. Regarding the 5.3 engine, I never liked it. Whatever they were doing for the ZO calibration of algorithms for that engine seemed harsh, unforgiving, and abrupt to me. I really don't care much for some of the 6.0 engines setup either.

Don't forget that the older boats are likely 500-800 pounds lighter than the new boats. Some of that extra weight in the new boats is offsetting the torque advantage. But the throttle response may be the bigger factor. I have the perspective of an old boat style and weight (Malibu LX) with an old engine (320 HP 5.7L) and factory Zero Off. It was delivered that way in 2009. It's noticeably different from both the PerfectPass zBox on older boats with older mechanical throttles and the Zero Off on the bigger boats with the 6.2 engines. The 6.2 engine is absolutely the way to go in tow boats. Very nice pull.

@The_MS could have a point. Maybe we should all have to take a SafeRamp course that advises us on the dangers of doing an S turn when a ramp is present. It absolutely could save just one. Gotta admit though, I'm surprised by that sudden reversal on mandated training.

They aren't totally unaware:

Unless there was some tremendous crosswind or excessive rollers/busy water, the driver should have been able to manage a legit path for that skier.

Puck for slalom course. Pylon for jump course.

I would try the Goode XTR Team. I think a 67 would be your size at your current speed.

There were no unfair conditions to necessitate a reride. The ramp was in the same location for every skier.

@skier2788, I consider each PB at each speed separately. There are those here that will say further down the course on the shorter (or same length) rope is more impressive than the prior loop at a higher speed. I see the combination of speed and rope length together as a unique challenge all it's own and give respect to higher speed as much as a shorter rope - although I would certainly be intrigued by someone running -41 off at 15.5 mph. Great skiing, by the way.

I start with tournament PB. If we get into a further discussion about it, the topic of how much further I've made it through the course may come up. At that point, practice may be discussed. The funny part is that my tournament PBs and practice up-the-line PBs are essentially identical. I only ever add any buoys after a couple of cracks at the wall pass and it is only 2.5 extra at 34 mph and 3.5 extra at 36 mph. In fact, I'd be suspicious if I were running additional full passes (or more) up-the-line in practice and not at tournaments.

I think I heard them talking about a change in propeller and how much the blades do or do not flex and the impact on a better pull. Maybe they'll pull it out of the water later and check the wax on the bottom of the hull.

I hope they produce a video. Sounds like a cool event. Jumping the shark was an iconic episode.

The AWSA rule book references IWSF rule 5.08, which is: 5.08: Skis a) Maximum ski width shall not exceed 30 percent of the overall length for jump and slalom skis and 35 percent of the overall length for trick skis. b) Any type of fixed foot bindings may be used. c) Devices affixed to the ski intended to control or adjust the skiing characteristics of the ski are allowed if they are fixed so that they do not move or change during actual skiing. d) No other devices are permitted. e) Skis must be safe. There must be no unnecessary sharp or abrasive (to the touch) metal, wood or other attachments to the ski which could, in the opinion of the Safety Director, inflict injury to the skier should he come in contact with the ski in a fall. f) Attaching two separate skis together in any manner is prohibited.

@Wish, I believe the rule was that the fin could not move during a pass and must remain fixed during the actual pass. I think they were trying to eliminate some sort of automatic steering or other mechanism that would be a real-time aid to the skier.

@LeonL, I suspect an AI account is doing the posting. Read some of the other posts from it.

Really good handle control.

I think the BTTF 88 reference was related to the similarity in appearance of that bank of hour meters/keys to the flux capacitor in the Delorean.